san franciscans [speaker not understood]. >> thank you. thank you. >> general manager? >> i want to confirm something and clarify something. i think with this language, we started using light green and dark green here. i do not think we're using the same definition that marin uses. we're using -- we're talking about 100% renewable in both the dark green and the light green option. correct? it's just the rec mix that will differentiate the light versus the dark. * >> so, correct. what we've presented were a series of 100% renewable portfolio. >> correct. >> and i think folks fell into the language of how do you describe the sort of premiumness of the green products that makeup that 100%. in order to express the differentiation between a heavily bucket 3 100% renewable program versus a less, a 5%

bucket 3 versus an 85% bucket 3. >> which is different from marin, correct? >> very different from marin. >> i agree with the public commenters who said the definition of light and dark green is different than how it's being used here today. >> i don't know if we need different language or what we need to do, but i think that's important to clarify. * >> we need different language. >> yes. >> so whatever it means, whatever our options are that we're talking about so there isn't this confusion because i think it is confusing. the other thing is when we do -- when you do come back, it would be good to see a column with the local power pricing to address these issues so that we can really have a comparison across the board of this different prices. * with an explanation of what that mix consists of so we can really see it. i don't know how you'll get to that resolution of what it is, but hopefully. >> before you -- so, the question i would ask is that, you know, they mentioned that shell would be 20 megawatts and

hetchy would be 10, but you still have to shape it, right? >> you still have to shape it, you still have to firm it. you still have to hedge it in case of the dry year. it's a couple points of clarification, also points of fact. so, i have personally with the finance staff and power staff walked through every single line item of their model. i can share with you exactly where the numbers are as i represented them. and, so, i know that you have the confidence in that. i have brought copies of the public model with me to walk them through, indeed the column that we have shown here and i want to make sure that the stakeholders also see is what lpi has proposed for the rec mix was as we show it here for that year one. you also asked us to unpack these key issues, whether or not we can provide the hetchy power and is it more affordable. or is changing the rec mix to

the tradable recs which are less than a quarter of a penny versus the bundled recs that are 5 pennies, how much does that affect price. so, we do have a shared goal. so, i want to make sure that the stakeholders as well as the viewing public knows that we all want to get the lowest price. it make our job harder to go out with a price premium at all. and if we were able to get cheaper greener power, we'd be the first ones to propose it to you. >> all right. when is your next meeting with lpi? >> my last one was last tuesday. we've traded e-mails as recently as today. i believe their next one is tomorrow? tomorrow afternoon. >> what time? >> 2 o'clock. >> where? >> it is in -- it's a teleconference and we'd be happy to share that with anybody that lets me know after the meeting.

>> i'm [speaker not understood] now. will mr. brooks be in the call or is he being excluded? he >> these are staff check inses. we have public stakeholders meetings as well as public technical meetings as well as commissioner meetings as well as lafco meetings. >> this meeting tomorrow is between staff and lpi? >> staff. >> and a teleconference? >> yes, it is. >> send me the details on that. commissioner moran? >> the next advocate's meeting is the 20th as well. so, that will be -- everybody will be invited to that as well on the 20th. >> a couple quick question. one is about the lpi proposal that there be 20 megawatts of shell and 18, i think it was, of hetchy. i have the same question of staff. the answer is that if hetchy power isn't cheaper than shell power, it doesn't matter what

the mix is. it price ends up being the save. -- same. * that didn't mirror exactly what the lpi was, the import was the same. with that said, i just urge that as we proceed down this road that we can focus on the numbers. there is liberty and freedom in the numbers and discipline in the numbers. the process we've gone through in the last few days, there is a chart that wasn't with us today that -- there was a memo that we got from l. wine rob saying we take issue with these three numbers. my question back to him was, what are your three numbers that go with that? his answer was, i don't know. * we need to focus on what those

numbers are, that if we agree on numbers, let's check them off and say, okay, that one is done. if there are numbers we don't agree on, it is a quantitative exercise. you can get there. even if you don't like each other. this is fine, folk. it works. so, i would just encourage that we focus on the objective. we get the concept. there is the old marketing thing about you bought the concept, now you have to buy the jeans. we're into buying the jeans phase. we got the concept. we need to be focused on objective analysis here and i think we can do that. and i think we'll all be better off if that was the focus. >> just one last thing. i just wanted to also say that as part of the survey, we are going to ask the question about local build out. are you willing to pay more for local build out? so, we're going to have

actually a comparison question between, you know, clean power sf and pg&e where our program has a local build out. so, we do have that information and we do feel that that's important. >> all right. vice president [speaker not understood]. >> thank you, president torres. i sense that there is a level of frustration. it's certainly understandable. my concern is if there's a perception that staff is not being totally available or providing enough opportunity to the stakeholders, then i would hope that we would be able to kind of rectify that. * courtney it causes us problems because then it seems like we're hearing two things. and i wrestle with it because,

not to completely contradict what commissioner moran just said, but it's not always about the numbers. you know, there's human capital, and investing in communities, and investing in the community work force is something that resonates with the people that live in our town. and i'm a little disappointed that we've kind of decoupled, to use the same term, because as i've been discussing this program, it has always been about a build out, which we have yet to assign a cost to, which now appears to be -- to go solar build out, which even causes me more confusion. and now we're going to talk about numbers. and my concern is it really over complicates things, with

all due respect, because now we're talking about something that's completely different. i mean, there's nobody, you know, there was a reference to the last general manager, what seemed like an hour ago at this point, there is' nobody that's more interested in jobs than our current general manager. * nobody. so, i'm pleading with staff to help us by making sure that the lines of communication are like just ridiculously 100% open. i'm going to ask also for some clear and concise information about the build out and about what now i believe is the go solar build out component because these things seem to be changing almost day to day [inaudible] getting my arms around it.

thank you. >> any other comments? you have the lyrics to cum ba, ya? >> i can't help you there. i just have some observations. i like the comment about liberty, freedom. i don't know how that work, but they're good notions. some observations not having been particularly involved in this, but seeing it from the edge. i think a lot of this has to do with the assumptions that various people have. i note that on slide 9 there is a section on the bottom for assumptions. i think this needs to be expanded in the future to explain these terms for those of us that understand and those that don't understand because there are a lot of concepts that are buried in those assumptions as to what means to what different people. one of those that i understand is this billion dollar bond to

support local infrastructure build out. i'm not sure that that works and i think that's one of the struggles that i've understood from staff is that you need that in order to build out what lpi and others want to see happen and that may not be liable or it may not be viable with the smaller year term program. so, understanding how that billion dollar bond works into it is i think pretty important. i mean, if i offer you all kinds of fantastic thing, sure, you can do great things and demonstrate success. but if that isn't available, then it's a totally different comparison. all right. some other comments. i don't know how this particular endeavor relates to the renegotiation of the pg&e interconnection agreement. and i know those are two entirely different things except the cost of wheeling

transmission from power -- our commitments to the districts. i think there is a relationship there, and how much hetchy power might be available at different times of the yearly during different weather scenarios. i'm having trouble seeing those in their two separate places without understanding how we work those together. and the time frame for those separate endeavors to the extent that they overlap. i'm also concerned about the risks to hetchy power customers, whether they're the district's, the municipal load, other customers by assigning possibly some amount of hetchy power to cca, which is a relatively new concept in the last few months that has come up. so, i come out at this point less supportive of using hetchy

power, more supportive of the shell approach because it keeps things in separate places. ask overall, just concerned that this cca endeavor seems to be coming more of a distraction and maybe that's too strong a word. * and but becomes a program that may be overwhelming our other core utility functions. and i want it to either succeed or exist in a way that doesn't overwhelm those other functions which we continue to have to perform. and we should, of course, try to have this discussion as civilly as possible. so, i don't know if any of those comments help, but thank you. >> i would argue, i would argue i think the conversation has been civil, there's just disagreement. >> which is fair. >> and we'll move from that point. >> and i agree with you on that. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> for civilly agreeing with me. any other public comments? i hope not. [laughter]

>> all right. public comments on matters to be discussed in closed session. any public comments on matters to be discussed in closed session? yes, mr. [speaker not understood]. david pilpow. on this point i am supportive of the staff's selection of emilio cruz as the next agm for infrastructure. i had some initial concerns about not emilio's background or performance, technical skills, but just a perception that, once again, a position has become not just a technical appointment, but a political appointment. and, so, i just want us to discuss and feel good about his skills and hoping that not every decision that infrastructure makes going forward will be looked at

through a political lens and have questions follow in that way. i think we've done a good job of keeping the general manager position both technical and political in a way that's useful and having all of the other staff positions be technical. >> >> i don't agree with you because i think the technical expertise is there -- i agree the technical -- i'm saying i agree with that. >> so i a political appointment means there are no qualifications of the candidate. i don't think that's the case. i think he has good skill sets in both ways. i just wanted to express those concerns, and we have agreed to meet and we will talk through that. but i think it's a fine selection and i now commend that to you. thank you. >> all right. any other comments? * >> commission members, on that particular item -- >> your name for the record. for the record, james bryant * . so, i'm here today to codify

the fact that you are picking up a very professional employee. [inaudible] anyway. so, emilio cruz is a professional. i worked with him while his tenure at municipal railway. he has a multitude of skills. he is bright enough to see things in whatever kind of political way you want to mention it. and i actually think david was thinking on the positive way. so, i hopefully recommend -- i willfully recommend that mr. cruz is brought on as a new member of this staff. i think he'll be a -- obviously he will be someone who will

help this staff with not only knowledge from his public tenure, but from this his private tenure as well. so, i want to thank you all for considering having mr. cruz on your [speaker not understood]. >> thank you, mr. bryant. appreciate t. is there a motion to go into private session? >> i'll move to assert attorney/client privilege. >> all right. >> second. >> so moved and seconded. all those signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> opposed? the motion is carried. >> i will read the closed session items. number 14, conference with legal counsel - pursuant to california government code section 54956.9(c) and san francisco administrative code section 67.10(d) (2). item 15, conference with legal counsel - pursuant to california government code section 54956.9(a) and san francisco administrative code section 67.10(d). and item 16, pursuant to government code section 54957 and san francisco administrative code section 67.10 (b), to consider public employee appointment/hiring for the position of assistant general manager for infrastructure of the san francisco public utilities commission; and pursuant to government code section 54954.5(f) and administrative code section 67.8 (a) (5).

>> people, please exit the room. >> werbach in order. commissioner moran makes a motion to assert -- >> attorney -- >> no, not disclose. >> all right. >> second. >> all those in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> owe those opposed? motion carries. discussion and possible action to approve the terms of employment contract. we've already heard public comment on this, haven't we? >> no, we actually haven't heard on this. we just heard about going into closed session. so, you can ask for public comment, but there's nobody. >> i don't see anybody here. >> i'd like to make a point that there are revised

contracts on the table. >> just for clarification for the record, there was a former contract that was posted. there are revisions to that contract and they're available for the public and distributed to the commissioners. >> all right, that's what you just gave us. all right. any questions? all right, moved. >> so moved. >> second? all knows in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> opposed? my sympathies and condolances. welcome aboard, he meal yo. emilio. >> thank you. >> i'm sorry, i have to go in a minute. would you like to take a moment? welcome aboard. >> thank you very much. i hadn't prepared anything because i didn't know [speaker not understood] was going to be. i look very much forward to entering back into the public sector. as you've seen through my resume, i spent of a decade in the city and county of san francisco. i've worked with quite a number of departments, none of which were the puc until date. and all of my time with the city has been very interesting. it's been challenging, it's been rewarding, and i definitely look forward to

continuing that service. i'd like to believe all of my work has been productive as well. i will give you my full productivity. i will give you my full effort and i look forward to working with you. >> here, here. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank god you didn't prepare anything. >> this meeting is adjourned. [adjourned]

please beware that the commission [inaudible] any mobile devices that may sound off during the proceedings. if you'd like to speak on an agendized item, please fill out a speaker card and when speaking to the commission speak into the microphone and do state your name for the record. i'd like to take roll at this

time. commission president fong? >> here. >> commission vice president wu? >> here. >> commissioner antonini? >> present. >> commissioner borden? >> here. >> commissioner moore? >> here. >> commissioner sugaya? >> here. >> first up, commissioners, on your calendar, consideration of items proposed for continuance, item 1, case no. 2012.1442c for 795 folsom street, request for conditional use authorization is being proposed for continuance to february 28th, 2013. i have no other items proposed for continuance and i have no speaker cards. >> is there any public comment on the one item proposed for continuance? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners? commissioner sugaya. >> move to continue item number 1 to february 28th. >> second. >> on that motion to continue 795 folsom to february 28th, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? excuse me, commissioner moore? >> aye.

>> commissioner sugaya? >> here -- i mean, yes, aye. [laughter] >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 and placed you under your consent calendar. all matters listed hereunder constitute a consent calendar, are considered to be routine by the planning commission, and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. items 2a and 2b for case no. 2012.0391d for 524 vienna street, mandatory discretionary review. item 3, consideration of adoption, draft minutes of special meeting of october 11, 2012 and draft minutes of regular meeting of october 18, 2012. that's all i have under consent. >> is there any public comment? okay, seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini. >> move to approve.

>> second. >> on that motion to approve items 2a and 3, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0. it places you under commission questions and matters. item number 4, review and approval of combined commission secretary position announcement and recruitment process4. * >> commissioner moore. >> may i ask that you call a and b? >> i did indeed. >> i didn't hear that. thank you very much. >> is there any public comment on minutes? commissioner comments? commissioner wu. >> move to approve minutes from february 7th. >> second. >> on